tv [untitled] October 13, 2010 1:30am-2:00am PST
draw down where we're serving from our reservoirs if that presents challenges for us. increase in wild fires. it's a huge concern for us and i'm sure for like san francisco we're an unfiltered drinking source and our watershed is in the mountains where there's lots of reck rauks and eventhough it's protected and there's no entry allowed our watershed we're are neighbors of an intensely utilized effort. water rights issue is only issues with our ground source but we do share that series of,aquafo r's and we have the city of vancouver on the other
side that also taps that water reservoir. and fish flows we're currently in the process of pursuing habitat conservation plan to come in compliance in the clean water act so we're very concerned about any impact that could impact our ability to maintain fish flows we're currently agreeing to. next slide. so, in terms of what we've done to study climate change effects on our system. in 2002 through the university of washington through richard palmer and margaret hahn, i won't go over that now dash maybe later. next slide. a couple mayor studies we
conducted is a reduction of our snow pact. the bowling watershed is not a rich environment. we do regularly get snow fall and our highest elevation in there is about 2500 feet. what we do have is a dotted line showing our regular run off of the streams in the and the dark line shows projected what would happen without the snow fall. it's not particularly significant for our municipal supply. one of these reasons is for the late spring rain period. what we typically see is the snow fall that does shed is scoured out in late april and may site has a much bigger impact on our fish flows
potentially. another thing the palmer study gave us was effect on our projected demand. you can see the higher line represents what we think would happen based on the climate change effect and that's 8 percent bump over norms in 2040. so a climate change enhanced version. the footnotes of this slide is since we conducted this study and this speaks to something chuck just mentioned their subjectively lower than when we first did this so that's an issue we're trying to understand how to incorporate that into our plan when demand is not going up in the same way it did in the past. there's fundamentally a different relationship. part of sit just a different
way and we're sighing higher and a lot of infill with residential and high density residential. these are some of the things we're trying to figure out how that impacts our planning. next slide. so what are we doing as a result of this work. well, first we plan to use our work with local models for watershed and there's new models this year for the,ipc, these we think will be better to down scaling the global effects on to a more watershed effect scale. the rest of these things are informed by the work we did so these are not things we went out and set out to do specifically but in doing all these things now we do have what we learned from our climate change.
to go through these, a new wholesale water sale and it's a significantly different back an and agreement. we capped the total amount of water obligated to our customers that's away we actually took control and gained some demand control over our previous a range mend and basically were a blienled. we're upping to address summer peak use and as we negotiate with the federal regulatory agencies and our compliance. we're assessing our ground resources and future reliability and resource and working renal in thely to set up interconnection and encourage partners to conduct study of their own and their starting to do that. i'm running out of time? one
minute. so i'll conclude with the additional information we'd like to see. we're still working from broad assumptions that derive from the climate change model. we need to improve our understanding of local and watershed products and continue to do model reliable sets garbage in and garbage out projects and it's incumbent on us to do that. the academic is doing a lot of work but we need a local handle on our information. the current models are not as reliable for precipitation as they are for global. if we saw precipitation events it would change the consumption
patterns considerably and the need for future supply capacity. until we understand whether or not that's a real possibility it's hard for us to make capitol investment decisions. finally, we need models that address increasing complex models and we have multiple systems and portland we have a hydro facility on both our damages and we're planning and are in the process for providing fish flows. other systems dealing with navigation and the whole, gamut of things that go on we need models to address that level of complexity. that's it for me i look forward to our on going conversation.
[applause] >> good morning., jarrod said in his introduction that this panel was going to talk about how we're planing for the worst and how we're planning for disasters. it's probably one of the worst introductions i've had it's such a downer, who wants to hear it really? so as a result of that introduction jarrod i've decided to entitle my presentation i feel so much better since i gave up hope. welcome to california water. i'm not going to talk about the analysises that were done or some of the technical planning we have done but really focus
on water management and what we've done specifically related to that in san diego. i want to tell you who the authority is. we're the regional wholesaler we supply to 24 retailers and we import water from the colorado river and the colorado river is in it's 7th year of drought and record low levels on the reservoirs. the other ss get water from california. which wildly fluctuates. so i think i don't gamble i just work in california water. you get the same sensation of putting it on the line all the time. we have a large capitol improvement program and it's part of the analysis and it mately the response we have
done to some of these challenges. let me show you where our transmission line is. we go from the northern border to the mexican border. three thousand miles of pipe. it's now about 13 feet in diameter and we serve 3 point 2 million people a year and serve an economy of billions. there is my life. you are here. there i am. i'm that corner at the bottom of the pipes in a really bright orange yellow area. we get an average of 8 inches of rain per year. so we - there is very little we can do related to rain fall and local run off. our strategies have to be radically different than
strategies that edward and chuck have sitting in portland and seattle and i think if there's anything you take away if there's not a one size fits all for any of this. not for california or the western states. you really have to customize based where your sitting. climate change and urban water supply. growing demand for water. however, we grew nearly ten years in san diego increased by 6 hundred thousand people and we did not add to our water demand and that came from just extraordinary efforts but the growing demand, we have hardened conservation and continuing growth and increased population and economic activity and obviously hotter
or dryer weather. uncertainty of our import and small surface level supply. less reliance on the hydraulic dependence supply and all of that has to be considered. how we are respond sag three prong action plan. i want to touch lightly on each of these. first is diversity kabs of our water supply portfolio and second is constructing a variety until facilitys to address the ever changing demands we have and third is prudent planning through drought management and looking that situation before it's on you and how you're going to address your shore table you supply. it's not just the diversification and also
maximizeg the sufficient use and continuing to reduce demand on import designs and that effort to try to manage both sides of the issue. the demand side as well as the supply side. let me show you what our portfolio looked like. not a very diverse portfolio in the past. 91, we had a 31 percent cut back in supplies and implemented 31 in the san diego region. we had two sources. local supplies to reservoir and our imported systems so we embarked on efforts to rediversify that supply. conservation. i told you we grew huge in 90's, yet our demands remaind the same and a lot of that was improving our local supply and that was our first focus and
that was conservation, recycled and ground water and now we're adding sea water and de salinization and other things and implementd the colorado river quantification settlement agreement which was a multi party, multi state agreement, which basically through fund g ing compensation and on farm and in their system were able to conserve water and that then moved to the urban area so you have the concept of a win win , farmers are able to farm in the more efficient manner and we're able to utilize and tap into water supplies in the past we have not been able to do. and then also we're lining a
couple canals, urban canals that will save additional water. we're moving - you saw what 91 looked like. in 05, we had a big chunk we went through recycled and i went through that by 2011 we will have added the de saline ization and the canals and the other part will represent ten percent of our supply portfolio. by 2020 we will have achieved a more diverse supply portfolio that is no longer solely dependent of the hydraulics coming out of the delta and colorado river. the second piece of the strategy is authorities capitol
improvement category. we recently recosted our program which is a 20 to 25 year program and it will cost us 24 billion dollars to do that. if we truly want water supply and reliability we need to pay for it. it does not come cheap. someone asked earlier in the earlier panel. what if the projections are wrong. we're talking a lot of money. my concern is what if the projections are right? are you willing to jeopardize your communities water reliability by saying we may not have to do that? some of ourcip? what we're implementing may make no sense in other areas. where we're spending our money may make no sense in seattle
where they have a different portfolio, supplies and timing. so we have a variety of components that we're doing and, we're going to be spending between 2 hundred and 4 hundred million a year for a really long time. what's important though, is that our community understands it and we - our communication is critical in getting the community to understand these situations to realize how these climate changes and our vulnerability play out and get them to support it. let me show you a couple of the emergency storage projects. we're spending nearly a billion dollars to set aside a 90 acre water supply storage. that's to avoid our major
pipelines that cross over five major faults so as a result we're going to store in the county. the second one is we're doing an additional hundred thousand feet raising an existing damage 2 hundred feet tall racing it by another 125 feet so it will be an interesting project to complete and that will be finished and start in the year and will be completed by 2012. the next, de salinization, we have opportunities intake and out falls with existing power plants an eventhough the plants may go away those are critical for us to achieve that piece of our water portfolio and then draught management planning, that is, okay what happens if we're short in a year, what do you do? and it really is
talking about doing that plan now and gets understanding from the community early on so everybody knows if supplies are short, where do we go. one of the greatest challenges is how do we encourage agencies so to develop local supplies and if a shore table occurs those local supplies may not be available. we have to balance that in the draught management plan, you'll see hardly anything. love those colors. but the idea is it's a multi prong strategy, where no one agency takes the brunt of the shortage. just because you have an agency - you can't have an agency at a 50 percent cut and another one
at only a 90 percent cut at san diego county - and i'm sure there's others like that - but we're all joined together in the hip in our economy. in summary i think there's no silver bullets and it will require flexibility, multiple strategies and all of us to get us through these changes times. thank you. >> thank you. one of the benefits of going later, maybe i should cross off all the stuff i was going to say because everybody hit it. i do want to start by thanking jarrod for his complete plan. we got you signed on 59. i actually want to start with a
conclusion and i'll repeat them at the end and we've hit them. but climate change is going on for the last 150 years. this is not something coming it's already here. it's hard to get your community to understand it. we need to be imagining it now and we're not doing a particularly good job of that. ,maurine had a constitution. there are no silver bullets you have to have a comprehensive approach to this. the next conclusion is, we have to build diverse water management portfolios in every region of the state. i like the language. jarrod started with portfolio and used the term hedges and
we're bringing a business risk management where you build a portfolio have hedge a sounds, and have contingency plans. you have to be prepared to respond to uncertain condition. the next item, is the statewide system that we have such a row bust statewide system has to be re-evaluated in terms of on raukss. how do we operate this in the face of what we have seen. we can't do it in what we have seen. that will require some reconfiguration. the final point and it's not the topic of this panel really. but as you do these and reconsider the reoperation of these we have to manage the greenhouse gases and the carbon footprint so we're fixing our contribution to the problem.
we can't ignore our contribution to the greenhouse gases. those all have to be part of the way we proceed. i only have 2 hundred slides so don't panic out there. the simple point here, i don't need to spend a lot of time. but in california we're seeing reduced snow pact and earlier snow melts are changing everything. higher temperatures are changing our ecosystems altogether. also the temperature of the water we have for certain aquatic species. when we look at snow pact changes one of the questions was the different changes. what we typically do is say we expect at least a 25 percent
reduction by 2050 some we expect a 50 point acre foot. we will lose 25 percent. some other projections have it losing 40 percent by 2050 which is not far away and there are projections worst than that. typically we have shown the nature of the reduced amount of run off that occurs as a result of run off. we're looking at this differently from a flood perspective, next slide. this may not be obvious but this is the peak day flows so it the highest you experience in the river system in this case the american river in a given year. here's when,folsome damage was built. these are the flows when they did not have the operations for flood management that's how you
would study the reservoir. now look since it was built. six of the highe flows recorded have happened since the damage was built. has the corporation changed the criteria, no. we have been aware of this from some time. this is feather river and,orville, was constructed here and if youed a 06 you would have four of the highest flows that have occurred since we constructed that. from a flood stand point we're not taking this into consideration. in terms of the roll or rule terms there's not much change in those. final example is san,jaoquin,
refr, you see 2006 is missing. there's a couple of points. one, the flashier nature that will continue as we lose snow back. the other is from a flood standpoint, but if you think about the hundred year flood has a chance of occurring one in a hundred years. most of that analysis was done in the first or middle of the past century. all the higher flows have occurred since then some what is the real hundred year event now and what is it going to be. so how do you design your flood systems to deal with that and they may be robust and not just rely on flooding levies. next slide. again, kind of a summary. much higher inflows during
winter and early spring we have to maintain greater flood control space and if all you do is that you probably lose greater water supply and clearly have to operate reservoirs and in california or anywhere else someone telling you how is haresy. we have to do that very methodically. let's go on to the next slide. california water plan layed out at basic approach to how to deal on our future uncertainty and strategy and it's based around the diverse portfolios. there are no scenarios in which california can avoid redoubling it's conservation level.
to some extent what we request can look at is like a family butt where you all of the sudden have stable revenue and one year we make nothing and the next year you make a whole lot. one way is trying control your cost and keep them down. the other is you have panic accounts or relatives you can borrow from. that's a longer story and never worked for me. so we have to do things to decrease or increase revenue and water supply and improve water quality. the higher that you brick in your system the more you can do for it the easier it is to recycle it. the more things you'd do with it. the higher the less energy you have to put into it. practice resource stu ward ship.
hopefully the water industry has learned it's not just an issue of supply but imagining all the issues that go with that and if you don't, those environmental issues will come back to bite you and undermine your supply reliability. final point on this slide is improved operational efficiency and transfers and part of that goes to the statewide system and really is about operating the - or reoperating or re-evaluating the operation system. i want to make a point here where the governor and legislature put prop, 84 was initiative and it was five billion for flood and a billion for integrated water management. we have a lot of money on the table to start